Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

This isn't really directed at you Miamian, but as a general statement. The hypothesis that the "Big Bang" was the beginning of both space and time and originated when a golf ball sized clump of infinitely compressed matter that was infinitely hot (that came out of nowhere???...where did the matter come from?) began expanding and coalesced into all the heavens is SPECULATIVE at best. It is no different than what Christians do when they say "look, their are suns and moons and planets and people and a complex life support system, and it must have all come from somewhere so there must have been a supreme being to set it all in motion." So they go about studying the planets, the moons, and the suns, and the complexity of the life support system and then call their findings proof of a Creator. It's not actually proof of a Creator. The big bang is the same exact thing. There is no proof that it is what kickstarted the Universe other than the fact that we are here now and had to come from somewhere and look at all the pretty stars and planets spinning around. Ok, it's more complicated that that, but it is no different than what creationists do. It's a hypothesis that started when Hubble observered that the Universe appeared to be expanding and since then more and more hypothesis and theory have been piled on in an attempt to explain this expansion, the origin of the universe, and the beginning of time and space from a naturalistic perspective. But all the top guys will admit that they really don't know and will never know how much validity there is to it since it is impossible to test the original event. No matter how much we learn about the Universe...what it is made up of, how it is moving, what we can observe today...we will not know how it began, where the matter came from, how it was infinitely compressed, etc since none of us where around at the time to observe it. It's a great hypothesis. Good stuff. I don't put my faith in it and neither should anyone that claims to only go on the data and the facts. The Big bang itself is not observable, testable, or repeatable (and to repeat it would be the end of the Universe and life as we know it - according the top proponents of the hypothesis anyway).

Operational science has a place in public schools including the study of evolution (IMHO) and is very different than origin "science". Origin science has no place in a public school science class for the very reason that people go away believing there is no difference between the two and because it has been presented as fact in a completely dogmatic manner. The problem is that it's all sold as a package and this is irresponsible and simply wrong. Origin science is the faith based materialistic religious aspect of evolution that informed creationists do not like and is the reason some of them are pushing for ID or other creationist philosophies to be taught in public school science classes along side the religious aspects of evolution. I hope it never happens...but that's because I know I wouldn't want an atheist being forced to teach my kids about God. Keep that in the churches and in the private schools.

Is big bang dogmatic? I don't know; it probably depends on the perspective of the individual. I think that any reputable scientist could not accept it solely on faith. It's actually an interesting paradox; it reminds me of the movie Contact.

Is big bang dogmatic? I don't know; it probably depends on the perspective of the individual. I think that any reputable scientist could not accept it solely on faith. It's actually an interesting paradox; it reminds me of the movie Contact.

I don't think the big bang idea itelf is dogmatic. It's a wonderful hypothesis for those looking for a possible explanation of the origin of the Universe outside of a Creator. The way it is presented and taught as fact and proof that there is no God is the problem...IMHO.

Is big bang dogmatic? I don't know; it probably depends on the perspective of the individual. I think that any reputable scientist could not accept it solely on faith. It's actually an interesting paradox; it reminds me of the movie Contact.

Which goes right back to what I was advocating earlier about teaching every possible theory and leaving it for the students to decide for themselves..

Which goes right back to what I was advocating earlier about teaching every possible theory and leaving it for the students to decide for themselves..

The problem here is that if you have to teach every possible theory out there, I doubt there would be any time left for the study of operational science. By every theory, they'd have to include all the flavors of creationism (old earth, new earth, etc. etc.) How about the Hindu or North American version of our origins? How about the Palauan or Samoan? There are literaly hundreds if not thousands of theories on where we came from. These, including those of origin science would best fit in a seperate philosophy class IMHO. Call it Origins 101.

The problem here is that if you have to teach every possible theory out there, I doubt there would be any time left for the study of operational science. By every theory, they'd have to include all the flavors of creationism (old earth, new earth, etc. etc.) How about the Hindu or North American version of our origins? How about the Palauan or Samoan? There are literaly hundreds if not thousands of theories on where we came from. These, including those of origin science would best fit in a seperate philosophy class IMHO. Call it Origins 101.

We've been in this circle over and over...he and others won't concede that it would do no harm in pointing out all possible theories...he's a needle stuck on a groove on the record player

We've been in this circle over and over...he and others won't concede that it would do no harm in pointing out all possible theories...he's a needle stuck on a groove on the record player

Hans' post seems to support what I'm saying, so I don't see how I'm the needle stuck in the groove. Furthermore, I never said that we couldn't point out all possible theories, just that cosmology does not belong in science class, where yes, I believe it would do harm. I'll propose a possible compromise to you: a reference to the science teacher to the cosmology class.

If you find that unsuitable then all I suggest is that we agree to disagree.

I don't think the big bang idea itelf is dogmatic. It's a wonderful hypothesis for those looking for a possible explanation of the origin of the Universe outside of a Creator. The way it is presented and taught as fact and proof that there is no God is the problem...IMHO.

I have never ONCE seen any Scientist claim that the Big Bang theory disproves God.

In fact, I have never seen any Scientist mention God period when discussing Scientific Theory.

Hans' post seems to support what I'm saying, so I don't see how I'm the needle stuck in the groove. Furthermore, I never said that we couldn't point out all possible theories, just that cosmology does not belong in science class, where yes, I believe it would do harm. I'll propose a possible compromise to you: a reference to the science teacher to the cosmology class.

If you find that unsuitable then all I suggest is that we agree to disagree.

Cosmology is a science. It is a science based on observation, collection of empirical data, and mathematic extrapolation. Why should that not be allowed within a "science" class?